I believe that we each have a responsibility to correct those things which we see are wrong, and as others who know me personally, if there is a fight that I feel is worth fighting, I will fight it:
Yesterday, Stephanie followed a commenter who linked to the blog of Stephan Huller. She noticed Maurice Casey mentioned in a post and when she noticed it was an email sent by Maurice to Charley Richardson the previous week, she immediately informed Maurice. He asked her to write to Huller asking him to remove the post because he had not requested permission for it to be published, it was published out of the context of the email he was responding to and needed his forthcoming work on a certain Jesus of Nazareth to support his comments on scholarship. Stephanie did as he asked only to discover a new post with rude and mendacious personal attacks against her with wild accusations about stifling his work and ridiculous speculations on the assumption she was not asking on Maurice’s behalf. He goes on to make wild accusations about a giant web of conspiracy in which Conservative Christians, Larry Hurtado, Jim West, Steph Fisher and others are accused of hoaxing him. Funny enough, Steph is not a Christian but an independent secular scholar interested in proper critical discussion including the discussion of Morton Smith’s work which is one of the many things Casey interacts with in his forthcoming book. Maurice then emailed Huller personally expressing his disgust and asked him to take both posts down. Huller responded saying he’d change Maurice’s name to a pseudonym but would not pull the posts. Maurice emailed Charley Richardson, as well as all colleagues who Richardson had originally sent the request to and Maurice then replied again to Huller. He received a threat from Huller to go ‘nuclear’ unless Stephanie was his daughter and here is Maurice’s response:
“I read this with total disgust. It is the work of someone with no morals or humanitas. Of course Stephanie is not my daughter. She is a doctoral student who came 12,000 miles to work with me because she wanted to work on the ‘Q’ material, and was impressed by An Aramaic Approach to Q (MSSNTS 122. CUP, 2002). After we had worked together for a while, she also became a wonderful personal friend. The notion that this is to promote my next book at your expense is grossly rude to me, and mendacious as well: that book does not require anything other than the recommendations which it has and a reputable publisher to promote it, which it obviously has too. This is no more convincing than the pathetic notion that scholars are trying to prevent the discussion of work on Morton Smith, though it is understandable that some busy professors do not find it significant enough to discuss. I do, but that’s a little bit in the next book, not as big a bit as Price, but knowledge could in my view advance a lot more quickly if people like that did not hold it up. Why have you no interest in telling the truth?
“You should take both posts down, not least because of the deeply offensive comments on Stephanie.”
Stephanie and Maurice have sent me copies of all correspondence between them and Huller and I am shocked at Huller’s behavior. If Huller wishes to be taken seriously as scholar, then his attitude should one which represents his learning and goals of better the world. I have seen nothing here to represent scholarship.
Update: Charlie Richardson has responded to Maurice with an apology promising to rectify the problem and Maurice has received a promise by Huller to remove the posts as well as a promise to go ‘nuclear’. I will take down this post when that promise is fulfilled.
Update: Once Huller removed his silliness, I pulled this post, but now that he has once again returned to his stupidity of the day, I am putting it back up. To note, in a post today, he writes:
In any event what seemed even stranger to me was that all afternoon I was getting all these nasty emails from ‘Professor Casey.’ Because I thought he was the ‘real Professor Casey’ I was very respectful. Yet I couldn’t help notice that the nicer I got the nastier his replies became.
At one point I naively asked him what his relationship with Stephanie was. Was she his daughter? Was this all a stunt to promote his latest book? The response I got was quite eye-opening:
Before we get to the response, let me share with you with the first email which Professor Casey sent Huller:
I am not impressed with this either. Kindly remove my comments altogether. I do not appreciate your comments on Stephanie either. You have been inaccurate and mendacious as well as rude, and you should remove all your comments on her as well. So please remove both posts.
Huller replies, thusly:
No she started this war and I will end it. I have waited almost a year to find out who the ’steph’ was who ridiculed my life’s work without so much as reading my book.
The one condition that might make me change my mind is if it turns out she’s your daughter. My father died recently and I could accept her actions as that of a dutiful daughter.
If I am not told that she is your daughter this goes nuclear tomorrow as I am beginning to suspect this is all to promote your new book at my expense.
With love
Stephan
Not sure how that was being ‘nice’ or not, but this is the problem with people like Huller.
January 11th, 2010 7:39 pm
Joel, Those links go nowhere now.
January 11th, 2010 7:44 pm
Thanks, Bitsy.
January 11th, 2010 9:53 pm
‘Why are you not interested in telling the truth’ was asked of him because he had published a personal email from the author of that question addressed to someone else without permission and out of context. He had also made wild and false accusations against somebody else which were rude and mendacious as well as inventing a conspiracy theory against him. Don’t throw that post away Joel just in case he’s persuaded to make some fresh personal attack. Nothing he’s said is true. It’s paranoia and conspiracy theory and inflated sense of self importance.
January 11th, 2010 9:55 pm
I’ve got it saved, Steph, and I’ve thought about reposting it, but I strive to be honest. I have a feeling that he will post something again. His ‘truth’ is one of revenge, which he has plainly said.
January 11th, 2010 10:08 pm
Ha ha – but you didn’t say “I will take this post down” – I wrote it! I’m afraid you’re right though. He’s very odd and full of bitter hatred.
January 12th, 2010 2:31 am
Why am I the bad person in all of this? I am not advancing a personal agenda here. I read this post:
http://www.jesusgranskad.se/theodore2.htm
And knew I had to incorporate it into my documentary. My team sent out emails to prominent scholars with an explicit caviat that any responses would be ‘on the record’ meaning that they would and could be used for publication. Then I get an email from a lady I don’t even know telling me that I would have to take down what Professor Casey said about these photos.
So what I am supposed to do? I get all kinds of crazy people posting things at my site. She is a rude person who is half crazy. I wish I could publish all her hysterical emails. The bottom line is that I took the posts down once I got to my hotel room. But I am not even sure that ANY of the emails and posts I received were actually from Professor Casey.
Again, these are your people – http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-steph.html. Read what they say about Steph. Don’t judge until you hear both sides of the story.
What kind of a person – and I quote – “cast aspersions on myself as a husband, a parent, on my family, and now even on my son as prone to indoctrinisation. Is this what the biblioblogosphere is for? Is this collegiality? I was celebrating the birth of my son and this woman could not even say “congrats” without attaching some barb on the end. ”
Don’t get suckered into this victimization scheme. She’s evil.
January 12th, 2010 8:21 am
Stephan, I have received all the emails and have been in contact. I have met Steph, and have communicated with her repeatedly. You are no scholar, and to actually say
Well, that’s just silly. You are out of puberty, right? The Professor is right, you know. Even with all the poor ’scholarship’ you report and your insane theories, and your hyperbolic conspiracy theories, I am still disgusted that a man who claims sanity as a foothold into this reality would write the things you have.
I’ve updated this post
January 12th, 2010 2:59 am
I’ve no idea what this post is about, so on a different note did you get your comment notifyer fixed?
January 12th, 2010 7:56 am
Stuart, if you receive this comment, then yes, I got it fixed.
January 12th, 2010 8:16 am
Are you getting notification on this one?
January 12th, 2010 5:21 am
I stumbled on the blog of (the anonymous person we’re all talking about) awhile back. That is one strange individual. FYI, this interchange was available a few minutes ago via Google Cache.
I can’t believe he would be so downright mean toward steph and call into question the character of Maurice Casey. Casey is known by skeptics, evangelicals, Catholics and everyone else as being an outstanding scholar and likable person. I’d love to sit down and talk with him personally some day and am jealous of the fact that steph gets to do it regularly!
The internet is so full of nutjobs (and we evangelicals have plenty of our own as well)…unfortunately Joel, as of late you seem to really be attracting the really annoying ones and in the case of one in particular, you keep interacting with them! I guess someone has to do it, but I wouldn’t have the patience. You can only handle the arrogance and constant distortions for so long!
January 12th, 2010 7:59 am
Ranger, I’ve seen the emails, and he was worse on them than what what said here.
Yes, I do seem to be attracting them, now don’t I? Umm…I bet it’s the GOP, RNC, and the CBOWD (Conspiring Bibliobloggers Organization for World Domination) doing this to me. I must avenge my life’s work!
January 12th, 2010 10:16 am
Another comment notifier test 15:16 GMT
January 12th, 2010 10:20 am
Sorry for the testing, but test
January 12th, 2010 10:22 am
Good idea and worked fine….
January 12th, 2010 10:35 am
Thanks for publishing my comments. I am surprised that I am still viewed as the bad one here but nonetheless you take an obvious interest in Polycarp and I Marcion so in a sense that makes us a little like cyber Tom and Jerry’s I guess.
I would like to take at least one opportunity to put this all in perspective. I am working on a documentary as part of a team. One of the team members sent out an email to Professor Casey asking for his opinion on this http://www.jesusgranskad.se/theodore2.htm.
In the email there was specific reference to the fact that his comments were on the record and as such that they would be published in some form. After we decided not to use Professor Casey’s comments (he himself said he wouldn’t be a suitable subject owing to his lack of expertise) I published his comments on my blog.
I am not sure that this should have been a problem but in any event I receive an email not from Professor Casey but from some lady who I and many others http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-steph.html have had some nasty run ins.
Are you telling me that at the moment I received an email from this kook claiming that she speaks for Professor Casey I should have known that she has shacked up with him?
In any event, I boarded a plane on Monday to go to Dallas. By the time I got off the plane I had received countless messages from both Stephanie and later a person claiming to be ‘Professor Casey.’ When I arrived at my hotel room I turned off the comments which weren’t apparently – at least according to the person emailing me the information – bothered the professor.
You haven’t seen ALL the emails that she was sending me. There was a deluge of hysterical and abusive comments. This caused me to question who it was that I was corresponding with.
The facts are however that Steph is a bad person. What kind of a person posts something like that on someone’s blog at the birth of their baby? What kind of a person shacks up with a professor whose views happen to form the basis for her doctoral paper at Nottingham?
Why I am dealing with this _____ (fill in the blank)? Why is she telling me she is on his computer writing emails on his behalf? As I said in my email all of this should have been between me and Professor Casey from the beginning as I indicated from the very beginning.
I have an article published in the Journal of Coptic Studies. That makes me a scholar. I have two more coming out in equally prestigious journals. I did that without having to shack up with a prominent scholar in the field.
You may think that what I have commented on does not represent injustice or something wrong with scholarship. But I do.
I
January 12th, 2010 10:46 am
And besides which let’s keep one thing in perspective here. Stephen Carlson wrote a book which claimed as the crown jewel of its arguments that there were clear signs of a ‘forger’s tremor.’ in the Mar Saba document. Regardless if you agree with my views on the origins of Christianity (which you don’t) Roger Viklund’s discovery is important if we all claim to have an interest in the origins of Christianity.
Things in this country often become driven by personality. You may not like me, you may not like Morton Smith but the original reason I got into trouble with Steph was that I want to demonstrate that the belief that all or most scholars accept Carlson’s claims that the document is a forgery is a myth. I have compiled a list of a hundred scholars who support authenticity or are at least not convinced by Carlson’s arguments that it is a forgery and that is growing by the day.
Why do I take such an interest in Morton Smith and rescuing his tarnished image? I don’t know. I can tell you that there is no money in it that’s for sure. I do believe that the benefits of generating a dialogue about the Mar Saba document outweigh this silly run in with a frantic sycophant.
Perhaps you don’t want the evidence reexamined on the status of the Mar Saba. That is your right. You have the right to believe it is a forgery. I happen to think it is the most important discovery of the twentieth century and the character assassination that went on after his death is the greatest injustice in scholarship.
I think my motives are very Christian, and if not Christian at least that of a ‘Good Samaritan.’ You may disagree but that’s why we live in a free country.
January 12th, 2010 10:53 am
Actually, after examining the evidences, I find Carlson’s views the better. Agenda driven scholarship rarely suits me. Morton Smith has been discredited, and you win no points from me mentioning his name or upholding him.
And Stephan, the truth is not fashioned on a democratic vote. Your continued mention of money and personal gain is telling of the type of person you are.
Regarding Christianity and your association there of. It is a free country, to be sure, and we have freedom of religion, but not that is a term so overly used today, that it seems anyone can claim it.
January 12th, 2010 11:21 am
Still testing. If you get this, could you recomment?
January 12th, 2010 11:45 am
Really you think that the color photos of the Mar Saba letter show signs of a ‘forger’s tremor’? Even Larry Hurtado doesn’t go that far. I guess I don’t have enough faith …
January 12th, 2010 11:57 am
Sorry, Stephan, but the evidence that I have seen points to a forgery.
January 12th, 2010 10:49 am
Stephan, Marcion was a heretic, and you are like him, well, that should be enough explanation. I have seen ALL the emails which were passed, from the very beginning, and your story doesn’t do justice to the truth. Further, your blogs posts or the worse kind, and as such, I will be forwarding your emails to the people creating your ‘documentary.’
As others have noted, Michael Bird was a bit off base in his estimation. Regarding the ’some lady’ bit, you should behave better and use her name. I know Steph, as others do, and your vulgarity in speech towards her is unbecoming of anyone. You are neither a scholar or a gentleman. You are of the worse sort, Stephan and should be ashamed of yourself.
January 12th, 2010 11:42 am
And Jesus was a heretic in Judaism. What’s your point? That heresies are bad? Ok see you at temple Friday night.
January 12th, 2010 11:43 am
Really you’ve seen ALL of the emails. This is based of faith? Ok I guarantee you, you haven’t seen all of here.
January 12th, 2010 11:57 am
Yep.
January 12th, 2010 11:56 am
No, the Apostles became heretics. Further, considering you are neither the Son of God nor and Apostle, this claim is rather silly
January 12th, 2010 12:08 pm
Okay I can accept that you and I – a Christian and a Jew – don’t see eye to eye on everything. But in the standard story there’s this guy Jesus who is a man disagreeing with the orthodoxy of his day, which happened to be Jewish. That’s a heretic.
As a believer you can say that you believe in his divine status. But the dictionary definition of someone who disagrees with orthodoxy is that of a heretic. N’est ce pas, Monsieur?
January 12th, 2010 1:16 pm
Maurice wants to know what country he is in. That is what is the prefix to the number he sent.
January 12th, 2010 1:19 pm
Not sure. U.S., I suppose
January 12th, 2010 1:31 pm
Maurice has rung him now and he wasn’t home. Maurice left a message and is now emailing him.
January 12th, 2010 1:40 pm
That’s the problem with, Stephan – he knows he is in trouble now.
January 12th, 2010 2:18 pm
Really I am in trouble? I phone backed twice no answer. Casey left a message on my phone clarifying that Stephanie wasn’t his live in girlfriend but only stayed with him when she was in town.
We know what the Bible says about relationship like this, don’t we Joel? But I guess this one of those times when people like you forget the Bible’s teaching.
Heretics bad; cohabitation with unmarried woman good if done by a friend.
The bottom line is that every time I have taken a step to accommodate the professor, his gach’ba comes in and takes things to the next level. Like this public scene we’re having. I didn’t start this. She accuses me of posting emails of her man – emails that were a response to an email that clearly said that everything was on the record and would be published somewhere at some time – and I am bad. But when she gives you my emails to post on your site, she’s the dutiful wife standing by her man.
Had the professor just sent me an email saying ‘hey, I didn’t know this was going to be posted at your site’ it would over a long time ago. Instead I get this internet stalker who attacks people at the birth of their children always trying to stir up the pot.
I will take down all my posts dealing with this sordid affair right now. If this post is still at your site in an hour then they all go back up.
I still don’t know how I should have known that Stephanie had the authority to speak on behalf of Professor Casey before I got on that airplane yesterday based on the tone of her emails.
I was as surprised as anyone to see a professor of this stature consorting with a gach’ba, but then different strokes for different folks I guess.
January 12th, 2010 2:23 pm
Done comments gone. I don’t see what purpose that serves given that comments are over here to the same effect as over there. I any event, the professor got his wish again.
Here’s to your new found sanction of cohabitation between unmarried people.
Look before you know it, you’ll be a liberal theologian …
January 12th, 2010 2:37 pm
Stephan, you are a very ill man. First, the bible does speak against cohabitation, but it also speaks against lies, blasphemy, lies, blasphemy, well, you get the idea. It is not cohabitation, if she is using a guest room, etc… And frankly, it is none of your business. You should be worried about the lies of your ‘life’s work’ instead.
Again, I’ve seen the emails, and they were taken out of context concerning Professor Casey.
Your personal insults to her tells me that you are a chauvinist, a sexist, and a man who is uncomfortable within himself and his station in life.
January 12th, 2010 2:54 pm
No, we received no phonecalls after Maurice rang him.
January 12th, 2010 3:25 pm
My reply to Charley Richardson’s email made clear ‘For this reason I see no point in interviewing me on this point. You need people who know more about photographs and ‘forger’s tremor’. When I wrote to Charley Richardson complaining about Huller’s publication of my email he replied ‘I want to make clear i had no idea that Mr Huller was going to post any of the comments on his blog…’
January 12th, 2010 3:46 pm
Thank you, Professor Casey.
January 12th, 2010 5:46 pm
he said it would have been ok if Maurice had sent him an email… MAURICE DOESN’T READ BLOGS, DOESN’T HAVE TIME TO RESPOND TO SILLY PEOPLE WHO PUBLISH STUFF THEY SHOULDN’T ON BLOGS NOBODY READS…. but I can do it easily for him when he asks me so I did it after we had dinner when he went to bed. Maurice only reads funny blog posts I send to his computer like Roland Boer’s enlightening ‘breakfast’ posts and Jim Linville’s delightful cat posts or something profound from Deane or Joel (on that suicide issue, Joel)
…
January 12th, 2010 6:10 pm
All,
For those who have seen me treat Huller ‘roughly’, I do so because I have tangled with him before, and have found him to be a very dishonest person – and also, I am not the only one.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=130969
January 12th, 2010 11:02 pm
Let me get this straight. Steph is the female version of Raphael Golb?
January 12th, 2010 11:10 pm
I think Huller is.
January 13th, 2010 4:51 am
I don’t get the analogy, Joel. How is Huller like Golb? I thought she was the one using false aliases. I’m confused.
January 13th, 2010 7:47 am
I dunno, Stephan, you tell me. Steph wasn’t and isn’t using aliases, unlike pretend scholars.
January 13th, 2010 6:08 pm
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/01/james-crossly-lectures-on-stephan-hullers-gender-identification-procedures/
January 12th, 2010 12:09 pm
I don’t agree with you. But that’s not the point though. Science never deals with absolutes. When new evidence comes along it has to be examined. That is my point.
If we are engaging in theology then, no, the evidence isn’t needed because faith is already there. But let’s be clear which team we’re playing for …
January 12th, 2010 12:11 pm
Stephan, I believe that with the likes of Bauckman, McGarth, etc…. we would find that first, Judaism had an orthodoxy, sure, but you would have to be pretty far out there to be a heretic. Second, we know that it was not beyond orthodoxy for a prophet to be indwelt with the Word of God, etc… If you had spent even a small portion of your time which you have wasted on your throne, you would note that biblically speaking, Christ was within orthodox Judaism in the things He said and did.
Try to remember, orthodoxy and heresy were not defined until much, much later.
January 12th, 2010 12:12 pm
Oh, I know the team that I am playing for Stephan. In cards, you might say I have the team with 52 cards.
January 12th, 2010 1:24 pm
No one can claim to possess “52 cards” when reconstructing the origins of Christianity. We have some of the cards but not all of them or even most of them. That’s what makes being a scholar so much fun.
January 12th, 2010 1:25 pm
Yeah…you got that point real well, Stephan.